Meds wrote:Manny Malhotra, Aaron Rome, Rory Fitzpatrick, and Tanner Glass, are just four names, off the top of my head, of players who were played ahead of better options on numerous occasions.

I don't have the inclination to get into it but I suspect if we looked at how each of those four players were deployed, what the team likely expected from players in that role, and who the other options were, I don't think things would seem as egregious as some like to claim.

Besides I never said AV was perfect.. I just think it's uncharitable to the point of inaccurate to think he puts young players in a position to fail (from a goals and assists standpoint) and then blames them for the inevitable result.

Before buying him out, and I agree he has to be a candidate, I think they will try to move him for whatever they can get. His cap and term are not too bad on a team where he can play top 4. There are teams that could use him in that role. Given the cap situation we are in our return in a trade does not need to be huge, something is better than nothing.

Why, you ask, would a team trade anything at all for him if they know he will be bought out? Because that way they guarantee they get him. If he becomes UFA he can go anywhere and a team that could use him may not be able to get him as a UFA.

Hockey Widow wrote:Why, you ask, would a team trade anything at all for him if they know he will be bought out? Because that way they guarantee they get him. If he becomes UFA he can go anywhere and a team that could use him may not be able to get him as a UFA.

The only way some team trades for Ballard is if1. They believe a bidding war will occur and he will command more than $4.2M as a UFA -OR - 2. They can offload a bad contract in return (and the Nucks may buy out that less onerous contract instead)

So...I say it's unlikely he's not bought out at end of the year unless he begins playing like a $4M d-man

Hockey Widow wrote:Before buying him out, and I agree he has to be a candidate, I think they will try to move him for whatever they can get. His cap and term are not too bad on a team where he can play top 4. There are teams that could use him in that role. Given the cap situation we are in our return in a trade does not need to be huge, something is better than nothing.

Why, you ask, would a team trade anything at all for him if they know he will be bought out? Because that way they guarantee they get him. If he becomes UFA he can go anywhere and a team that could use him may not be able to get him as a UFA.

Hockey Widow wrote:Before buying him out, and I agree he has to be a candidate, I think they will try to move him for whatever they can get. His cap and term are not too bad on a team where he can play top 4. There are teams that could use him in that role. Given the cap situation we are in our return in a trade does not need to be huge, something is better than nothing.

Why, you ask, would a team trade anything at all for him if they know he will be bought out? Because that way they guarantee they get him. If he becomes UFA he can go anywhere and a team that could use him may not be able to get him as a UFA.

I thought about this as well and this is why it's extremely unfortunate we don't have a young guy ready to step in..somewhere the very disappointing Cannaughton should be. Then Ballard could be a tradable asset come deadline time, especially given this is the last year where teams will have a bit of cap space to take on the short term gamble. You know there will be a darkhorse low-cap team poised to make a run come deadline time who'll be looking for that extra d-man. What better way to unload him, even if all you could get back is a low pick, than have Aquaman waste millions buying him out?

Unfortunately, we'll be in a position to be looking for depth as opposed to unloading it so it's not a likely scenario. No way we can leave that spot for guys like Alberts and Barker....damn if only Cannaughton can play.

You are the one who said AV doesn't give young players opportunity, so you are the one who needs to bring the examples.

Which young players do you feel were not given a chance by AV ?

Not flipping the question, I said he does not give young guys a chance, an example is last season when the Nucks had 1st in the division locked up Kassian only avg 11 mins a night mostly playing on the 3rd or 4th line. Other than Kassian name 1 young guy on the team? I guess we could pick Tanev but once again last season he got his chance because of injuries to players like Salo and Ballard to name just 2.

I don't think I need to prove anything else, I suppose you can ask me who in the minors could come up? What about Schroeder to name one player, drafted first round 3 full years in the AHL and now only given a chance to play due to injuries. I don't follow the Canucks in the minors to determine who else should of had a chance.

Maybe the Canucks don't have anything in the minors worth bringing up but that is a whole different thread and discussed to death already.

Reefer2 wrote:Not flipping the question, I said he does not give young guys a chance,

It is totally absurd to criticize a coach for not giving young players a chance and then not name the young players who weren't given a chance.

Kassian only avg 11 mins a night mostly playing on the 3rd or 4th line.

Kassian did not seem capable of playing more then that last year.

Other than Kassian name 1 young guy on the team?

Again.... The burden is on you to name a guy who should be on the team and isn't. You are the one who made the criticism, back it up.

What about Schroeder to name one player, drafted first round 3 full years in the AHL and now only given a chance to play due to injuries.

Schroder has struggled for all 3 years in the AHL, plus we had another rookie centre on the team last year. Do you honestly think we should have forced another rookie into the line up especially when said rookie wasn't playing that well in the AHL ?

I don't follow the Canucks in the minors to determine who else should of had a chance.

dbr wrote:Besides I never said AV was perfect.. I just think it's uncharitable to the point of inaccurate to think he puts young players in a position to fail (from a goals and assists standpoint) and then blames them for the inevitable result.

Not playing players until they're ready (i.e. can play responsibly at both ends) is not just an AV mantra, it's an MG one. I am not an AV fan at all, but if you think he needs to give the young ones more ice time (I don't personally) then MG shares some of the blame.

I do think that AV is too much of a "one step at a time" type guy. He never seems to worry about what's coming down the road. That concerns me a great deal.

Hockey Widow wrote:Why, you ask, would a team trade anything at all for him if they know he will be bought out? Because that way they guarantee they get him. If he becomes UFA he can go anywhere and a team that could use him may not be able to get him as a UFA.

The only way some team trades for Ballard is if1. They believe a bidding war will occur and he will command more than $4.2M as a UFA -OR - 2. They can offload a bad contract in return (and the Nucks may buy out that less onerous contract instead)

So...I say it's unlikely he's not bought out at end of the year unless he begins playing like a $4M d-man

I think a team like the Islanders know their money is no good to a lot of free agents; as with Lubo Visnovsky this year (who I will pass to say is a vastly better player than Keith Ballard) they may choose to try to scoop up a player under contract who can't turn them down.

BingoTough wrote:I do think that AV is too much of a "one step at a time" type guy. He never seems to worry about what's coming down the road. That concerns me a great deal.

Do you have an example?

You're getting to sound like a broken record with this kind of response Pot. Kinda like RD or that guy on the old site who would spell check everyone's posts.

Do you think you are some kind of authority figure or teacher or something? Just because someone doesn't have a specific example doesn't mean they aren't entitled to an opinion.

Vigneault IS a conservative coach. There is no question about that. He does play favourites with some players and seems to ride others into the press box. Rookies do struggle under him, not because they have to earn their ice time, that makes sense, but because he expects them to play perfect. One mistake and they are often done, while guys like Rome could screw up left and right and he gives them more chances. This doesn't just apply to rookies and young players though, he did this with Ballard too, for example. Young players also need the time with experienced players who are of like playing style or a complimentary style. They also need to be given second chances, not terrified they'll be back down to the farm because they missed an assignment or turned the puck over. Again, favourites though. How many turnovers did he let Edler commit last playoffs? Edler sure didn't see a reduction in minutes. Hodgson likely only got his chance because Gillis said so and then they needed to showcase him for a trade. His handling of Kassian is the first time I have seen him utilize a young player properly and not outright dismiss or bench him for a mistake or two. It's a good thing.

BingoTough wrote:I do think that AV is too much of a "one step at a time" type guy. He never seems to worry about what's coming down the road. That concerns me a great deal.

Do you have an example?

You're getting to sound like a broken record with this kind of response Pot. Kinda like RD or that guy on the old site who would spell check everyone's posts.

I think people should at least attempt to back up what they say, don't you?

Just because someone doesn't have a specific example doesn't mean they aren't entitled to an opinion.

Uhh ok.

Vigneault IS a conservative coach. There is no question about that.

And yet the Canucks don't play a conservative style and have been a league leader in goal scoring for the past 3 seasons. I would suggest your point is highly debatable.

He does play favourites with some players and seems to ride others into the press box.

Examples please.

Rookies do struggle under him, not because they have to earn their ice time, that makes sense, but because he expects them to play perfect.

Lets have a look at the rookie players who not only performed under AV, but actually performed above expectations.

Kesler, Burrows, Edler, Tanev, Hansen, Bieksa, all developed directly under AV and every one of them performed well above their draft expectations.

Now lets see your list of Rookies who regressed under AV and were set back by his coaching?

-a pin drops-

Young players also need the time with experienced players who are of like playing style or a complimentary style. They also need to be given second chances, not terrified they'll be back down to the farm because they missed an assignment or turned the puck over.

I agree, see Hansen and Kassian with Sedins. See Raymond with Kesler. See Hodgson with Malholtra and Higgens. See Edler with Ohlund or Salo. See Bieksa with Mitchell. Tanev with Ballard.

The bottom line is that AV's track record with young players has been very good. People may not like the way he has managed them but it's a results oriented business and his methods have yielded results.